Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yācati he asksDate: 1670

1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting

Somebody who can't recognize a joke might want to reconsider his or her various suggestions about changing our genome.

You might want to study human behavior. It is quite fascinating.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991

More seriously, though, I now intend to make a career out of advocating human GE. Both philosophy and psychology / neuroscience could be neat transitions from linguistics (what I am currently reading). I'm not sure which would serve my purposes best. Perhaps both

Would you agree that colonizing space and climbing up the Kardashev scale is a good thing

I mean civilization being wiped out by the Sun's death wouldn't be good right

If we can agree on this much, I'd like to point out the human race as is is not terribly conducive to this goal

In fact, it's not really even conducive to stewardship of the only planet we've got right now

Since I've made a point of reading 50+ pages every day, I've got a lot of food for thought now. Consider this, from the recent Springer book Terraforming: The Creating of Habitable Worlds:

Quote

In the mid-1980s, a University of British Columbia, Canada task force developed an accounting system to evaluate the environmental impact of human beings. The task force found that to feed and deal with the waste produced by each Canadian citizen (and there are currently about 33 million Canadians) requires about 10 acres of land (4.2 hectares = 0.042 km2). Remarkably, if the rest of the 6.6 billion people in the world were able to live to the same standards as the average Canadian, then the total area required to support the entire world's population would be about 66 billion acres, or 2.77 billion square kilometers of land. This ecological footprint is equivalent to the surface area of about five Earths (or, equivalently, about 18 times larger than the Earth's actual land area). Although in Canada, the United States, and most of Europe people have great expectations and can simply assume that there will always be electricity, drinking water, sewage treatment, garbage removal, and food to buy in stores, the vast majority of people in the world have no such expectations or luxuries. This poverty reduces the impact of Homo sapiens' collective footprint upon Earth, but nonetheless there is literally nowhere on Earth where the presence of humanity, either by alteration or habitation, isn't felt.

If the study carried out is even remotely true, then, let's be serious here, the truth sucks big time. If it turned out that human GE could contribute greatly to reversing these ugly trends (I find it strange that none of you have argued that it couldn't), then it should start to be adopted as soon as possible, because little real cost is entailed, aside from insults to our pride. Well ... there are ethical risks, I guess, but I don't see any other (realistic) way forward ... a risky transition is better than incurring a 100% risk of continuing to suck

And so far everyone who's disagreed with me about human GE has reacted with either indignation or fear, with perhaps only shallow defense of their viewpoint

Could we attain, say, type II status with the current population? ... Maybe ... but I sort of doubt it ... the construction of something like a Dyson array seems almost unthinkable under the present circumstances. And the more important question, regardless, is whether we want to cripple ourselves (or, that is, remain crippled, relatively speaking)

I mean civilization being wiped out by the Sun's death wouldn't be good right?

Hmmm ... the Sun is about halfway through its life-cycle on the main sequence. That gives us about five thousand million years before the Sun expands into a red giant. Multicellular life on earth has been around for about five hundred million years, just to put these things in perspective. Current evidence suggests that modern humans have been around for about two hundred thousand years. In the United States (just to give one example) nobody has any real idea about how to to keep Social Security going for more than about twenty years.

I don't think we need to worry about civilisation ending because of the Sun's death for a while yet. But yes, on the other hand, you're absolutely right. The human species as is is not conducive to the stewardship of the only planet that we've got right now. Nevertheless, I wouldn't worry too much about the planet. Worry more about the species. It's more likely that the planet will shake us off like a dog shakes off a bunch of fleas than it is that we'll render the planet uninhabitable.

And, if you're hoping to save the species and climb up the Kardashev scale of levels of technological development of civilisations, I think you'll be dissappointed - not that you're likely to live long enough to find out even given various antisenescence technologies which might come along while you're still alive.

It's really not a question of whether there will be genetically engineered humans; it's more a question of when, by whom, and to what purpose.

Given what we know from recorded history (granted, not much information about a pretty short period of time, but it's all we've got), I don't think we're going to get people who are genetically engineered to be more intelligent and more conscientious. From what I can tell, we're more likely to get:

I get that you're the kind of person who wants to improve the human condition and ensure the future of the species. Just remember that most people don't care at all about the future of the species or space colonization, and have never heard of the Kardashev scale.

Sure, you can go around like Ray Kurzweil, writing books and giving talks. I just wouldn't get my hopes up too much.

Just so that you know, I never look at Youtube links anymore. Go ahead and post them, just don't expect me to respond to them.

Finally, as a side note, why do you keep changing your nickname/avatar? I really am just curious. It doesn't bother me, though some people might find it confusing.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991

We still don't know enough about genetics to create a "super race". As soon as you start playing with single gene mutations, recessive traits become more pronounced. So now, instead of creating something that's better, you may actually wind up with something that's worse.

Regardless of the existing state of technology, and the "pure science" involved, you will always have those that twist it for their own demented ideals. Creating utopia via genetics may be popular science fiction reading, but in reality, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

I agree. We've only just begun to understand the human genome. It's far too early to start tinkering with it. Even treating certain heritable diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) with genetic engineering caries certain risks. Along similar lines, it so happens that sickle cell anemia, a disorder fairly common among Africans and people of African descent, is linked to a gene which also confers a degree of resistance to malaria. Do we really want to start altering things?

Also, Triarus Fidelis, some people have responded with fear to your suggestions. The ability to feel fear is a trait acquired via natural selection. It's what keeps you from getting run over when a car is about to hit you. Just because fear is non-rational doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Perhaps some fear what you're suggesting because it's a fearful thing.

Also, another thing about your nickname - I was just re-reading this thread and I realized that there were a lot of references to somebody called "Doden" ... who is now no longer a person who posted here, or anywhere in the Vector Linux forums, for that matter.

I take back what I wrote about you changing your nick. It does bother me. It's disingenuous. It's inconsiderate. It would be a sign of good faith and honesty if you would stop doing it.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991

I take back what I wrote about you changing your nick. It does bother me. It's disingenuous. It's inconsiderate. It would be a sign of good faith and honesty if you would stop doing it.

I had a user on my site that did this on a semi-regular basis. After the third time, he was told point blank to cease the practice. He's now permanently banned with his ISP on my server's permanent deny list.

And, if you're hoping to save the species and climb up the Kardashev scale of levels of technological development of civilisations, I think you'll be dissappointed - not that you're likely to live long enough to find out even given various antisenescence technologies which might come along while you're still alive.

I get that you're the kind of person who wants to improve the human condition and ensure the future of the species. Just remember that most people don't care at all about the future of the species or space colonization, and have never heard of the Kardashev scale.

Why has Idiocracy not taken full hold then? A minority of people do have a disproportionate influence on society

As soon as you start playing with single gene mutations, recessive traits become more pronounced. So now, instead of creating something that's better, you may actually wind up with something that's worse.

Watch that fetus then

And hope it doesn't develop a nervous system before it must be aborted

Regardless of the existing state of technology, and the "pure science" involved, you will always have those that twist it for their own demented ideals. Creating utopia via genetics may be popular science fiction reading, but in reality, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

I agree. We've only just begun to understand the human genome. It's far too early to start tinkering with it. Even treating certain heritable diseases (e.g. cystic fibrosis) with genetic engineering caries certain risks. Along similar lines, it so happens that sickle cell anemia, a disorder fairly common among Africans and people of African descent, is linked to a gene which also confers a degree of resistance to malaria. Do we really want to start altering things?

Why should we allow malaria to continue to exist?

I mean if we had a bunch of smart people working on eliminating or providing a vaccine for malaria, sickle cell anemia would not be necessary would it

Also, Triarus Fidelis, some people have responded with fear to your suggestions. The ability to feel fear is a trait acquired via natural selection. It's what keeps you from getting run over when a car is about to hit you. Just because fear is non-rational doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

It's perfectly rational to be fearful if it saves you from getting hit by a car, if your goal is to remain alive

If your goal is to increase societal welfare and you don't use a very useful means to bring about that end, then you are being irrational

Also, another thing about your nickname - I was just re-reading this thread and I realized that there were a lot of references to somebody called "Doden" ... who is now no longer a person who posted here, or anywhere in the Vector Linux forums, for that matter.

I take back what I wrote about you changing your nick. It does bother me. It's disingenuous. It's inconsiderate. It would be a sign of good faith and honesty if you would stop doing it.

lolwut

You can easily see posts of mine from waaaay back when I was still hanumizzle

Some fear the suggestion because human nature has shown time and time again through the centuries that just because an original idea had noble beginnings, it rarely ends up that way.

Do you have hard numbers to support this idea? What is "noble" and what does it mean that it "rarely ends up that way"? Is there evidence that could update our posterior probability that human GE will (not) turn out badly, making it less than the prior probability?

I had a user on my site that did this on a semi-regular basis. After the third time, he was told point blank to cease the practice. He's now permanently banned with his ISP on my server's permanent deny list.

On another forum where I post, a mod does that all the time. No one bats an eye

If I were in that user's place, it would be time to start using samair

I'm not. Do whatever you like, do whatever makes you happy. Also, since we have the First Amendment in the US, you have the right to say whatever you want, as long as it it's not something like "Hey Joey, here's $500. Go whack that guy I told you about." Well, you can say that, as a joke or something. It's ordering the hit for real that's illegal. I may disagree with you, but I defend your right to say what you think.

Quote

It's perfectly rational to be fearful if it saves you from getting hit by a car, if your goal is to remain alive

.

That's not precisely true. Becoming afraid and feeling fear are non-rational (as opposed to irrational, i.e. against reason). At such times people feel fear and unless they're contemplating suicide, the events in their brains have nothing to do with having rational "goals."

...

You've yet to show to my satisfaction that we know enough about the human genome to start altering it. Perhaps at some point we will. In my opinion your time would be better spent understanding genetics first before you "make a career out of promoting genetic engineering," but as I already stated, you have the right to do what you like with your time.

...

Throughout this entire thread you've been making a very old and pretty obvious philosophical mistake known as "ethical intellectualism," the idea that if people are intelligent enough to know the right decision they will make it. There are plenty of examples to prove this is false. I'll leave it to you to find them. I'm sure you can.

Quote

lolwut

You can easily see posts of mine from waaaay back when I was still hanumizzle

You missed the point. Of course anybody can see any of the posts you have made that haven't been deleted by a moderator. My point is that in these threads other people have referred to "hanumizzle," and because of the way the site is designed, there is now no such member. That member is now known as Triarius Fidelis, and has been a dozen or so other people in between. Next week, when you're Optimus Prime or whatever, the problem will be the same. If someone were to go back and read a thread in which somebody responded to one of your posts, that person would only see whoever you are at that time, not who you were then. Context can clarify some of this, but not everything.

I have no idea whether or not you're trying to avoid taking responsibility for how you interact in these forums, but the effect is the same. If you can't see that it's deceptive and inconsiderate, then I would seriously doubt your qualifications for making decisions about what humanity should be like in the future.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991

You've yet to show to my satisfaction that we know enough about the human genome to start altering it. Perhaps at some point we will. In my opinion your time would be better spent understanding genetics first before you "make a career out of promoting genetic engineering"

So little about the nervous system was known when people first started to model it formally in the 1940s

Digital computing as we know it today eventually emerged from these efforts

Granted these are different things but I think a general case could be made that thinking about something before it is attainable can and in many instances has been productive

Throughout this entire thread you've been making a very old and pretty obvious philosophical mistake known as "ethical intellectualism," the idea that if people are intelligent enough to know the right decision they will make it.

Yes but I'm also talking about engineering personality to help "make the right choice"

We can't pretend that some genetic factors in personality aren't already known

You missed the point. Of course anybody can see any of the posts you have made that haven't been deleted by a moderator. My point is that in these threads other people have referred to "hanumizzle," and because of the way the site is designed, there is now no such member. That member is now known as Triarius Fidelis, and has been a dozen or so other people in between. Next week, when you're Optimus Prime or whatever, the problem will be the same. If someone were to go back and read a thread in which somebody responded to one of your posts, that person would only see whoever you are at that time, not who you were then. Context can clarify some of this, but not everything.

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

I'm not saying that you because you've been inconsiderate, therefore your claims are false. I'm saying that because you didn't see that you had been inconsiderate, I question your judgement and qualifications in general, and more specifically in these matters. That's not the same as an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would be something more like "You're a jerk and often very annoying, therefore we shouldn't have genetic engineering." Just to be clear, I'm not saying that either.

I'm also not saying that we shouldn't be talking about altering the human genome. We certainly should be talking about it, and even planning for how things will be when somebody actually does it, because somebody will, probably sooner rather than later.

I just think that it's a bad idea to actually start doing it before we really know what we're doing. Even then there are risks, because of unintended consequences. This is an area where we need to be very, very careful.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991

I'm also not saying that we shouldn't be talking about altering the human genome. We certainly should be talking about it, and even planning for how things will be when somebody actually does it, because somebody will, probably sooner rather than later.

I just think that it's a bad idea to actually start doing it before we really know what we're doing. Even then there are risks, because of unintended consequences. This is an area where we need to be very, very careful.

Well we have started. Just on other species. But not just simple prokaryotes, even other animals. So we'll already have a lot of practice in before it happens. Of course I see no reason why genetic engineering of humans should not be implemented incrementally

The growth of knowledge and development in this area is nothing short of explosive. There is much to look forward to

Be that as it may, nobody's debating it. One person even said that if you did it on his site, you would be banned permanently. And I don't see a whole lot of people jumping in here to defend you. So you can believe what you like, but you might want to consider what some of the reasons could be for some of the reactions that you get from people. Your defense of your use of the word "gay" some time ago comes to mind. If a lot of people get angry about things you write, it may not be only because you're more intelligent than they are and can't see things they way you do. There might be other reasons.

I question your judgement and qualifications in these matters because it's unwise to hand over large responsibilities to someone who has shown that he can't handle small ones.

Quote

This will be the aim of my career.

That sounds like a good idea. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to the discussion.

Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991